comment #1

Geoff says ...

Very well put. I can't add anything more than that except to say that I asked myself those same questions about the final line and I tend to think it's the dream that a decent man would have about hope. But it's just a dream.

"And then I woke up." Bleak, somber, and very powerful.

comment #2

mutinyco says ...

The telling of the dream is a recognition of mortality. He'll see his father again once he passes on...

comment #3

ROTC says ...

NO! Sorry but that letter adds nothing particularly substantive to the debate, just more rationalizations for the film's jaw-dropping anticlimax. Because the movie was so brilliantly executed up until that point, I think you're all trying to comfortably delude yourselves by aggressively perpetuating the notion that the conclusion was as well-refined. Nope, no dice.

First, why on earth should we care about what Tommy Lee Jones's character had to say at the end. Remember, this was a lawman who initially chose to patiently wait on the sidelines as the case began to develop. Perhaps as a result, he was consistently one step behind, with tragic results. So his sorrowful opinions and dreams about a supposedly changed world really didn't resonate in any meaningful way since, it could be argued, he didn't act particularly appropriately (let alone heroically) himself.

Second, this film was a textbook example of "less is more." Most notably, its design was rooted in eerie quietness disturbed by definitive outbursts of noise. So to end the film with a couple of lengthy, dull monologues was destructively incongruous with everything that preceded them. As I said on another thread, the film probably could have made the same point more effectively by having a retired TLJ sitting in a rocking chair in his civilian clothes, staring mournfully into the emptiness of his remaining life. Instead, the filmmakers chose to blackout following a heaping bunch of blather - which, as someone noted elsewhere on HE, is unfortunately a standard Coen Brothers coda.

comment #4

MAGGA says ...

This film has yet to be available in my neck of the woods but I remember feeling something like this when all the ass-breathers were so angry at the ending of A.I. That was a profoundly moving, complex, tonally challenging ending that some discussed for weeks after and are talking about it still, while a vast majority sismissed it as sentimental and Hollywood-like for reasons that I am probably not clever enough to fully comprehend. If this is anything close to as special I really hope it speaks to me too.

comment #5

JD says ...

"I am so excited that this film even got made..."

Someone really needs to give some credit to John Lesher. He took over Paramount Vantage a few years ago and, within weeks, stalled, difficult films like There Will Be Blood, Into the Wild, Margot at the Wedding, and No Country For Old Men had all been greenlit. These films aren't for everyone, but isn't that the ideal function a studio'' indie division: to allow a-list actors and filmmakers to take risks, irritating some audiences while amazing others? It may be too early to say for sure, but Lesher seems to be the kind of executive that Harvey Weinstein always pretended to be, but never fully was.

comment #6

p.Vice says ...

I'm looking foward to all the simpletons trying to refute Craig's well-written argument, like ROTC who starts talking out his ass about Bell's 'inappropriate' actions negating what the character has to say. Laughable. Go ahead and dig your holes a little deeper, folks... there's plenty of room on the bus for all y'all dullards out there!

comment #7

Doghouse Reilly says ...

For me, the last 20 minutes make the movie - give reason to the brutal first two thirds.

The break in the narrative is the culmination of a series of smaller breaks and skips. The initial violence and gore is so graphic, the setpieces so complete and excruciating...and then gradually the Coens start interrupting them, leaving them unresolved, not letting you see.

That's the design of the movie. You may not like it but when you object that the ending is anticlimactic or the narrative unfulfilled, you're missing the point - you're not taking the movie on it's own terms.

The real debate should be why - to what end the movie is designed this way. That would be a more fulfilling and interesting discussion than endless back and forth with people who seem to think movie=plot.

comment #8

tophertilson says ...

It's not a matter of people being apologists for the film. For those for whom the ending worked, the ending is not only inevitable, it's the best part of the whole damn show. I saw this movie weeks ago, and I'm still haunted by that last speech.

I'm greatly looking forward to THERE WILL BE BLOOD and SWEENEY TODD (I'm a nut for the stage show), but I can't imagine anything else this year topping the last few minutes of NO COUNTRY.

comment #9

le corbeau says ...

Me not understand ending. Me not understand why not big boom boom hooray like other movies. Me glad Jeff, for second time, call attention to post which reduces subtle debate on his site about ending to Jeff vs. low brains who don't get it.

comment #10

Chris Willman says ...

Dear ROTC: Really glad you did not direct "No Country."

comment #11

Dirty Harry says ...

The more time that passes the more I want to jump back into this movie again. Same with JESSE JAMES. I'm bewitched by the experience and itching to get lost in the world created by these filmmakers. Both films are like The Nexus and I'm Malcolm McDowall ready to kill Kirk to return.

And I'm one of those low brains who was put off by the ending of NO COUNTRY, but want to give it a second look before making a final judgement.

Much of what GoodVibe says is well thought out but this an insight too far:

"and the beauty of not showing Moss's fate on-screen is a direct comment about audiences that crave violence for their entertainment."

comment #12

K. Bowen says ...

I should say that I was initially one of those a little hesitant about the ending. Then I thought about it afterward and caught up pretty quickly. The more I discuss it with other people, the more I like it.

comment #13

BNick says ...

The ending is better the second time because you know it's coming and you pay closer attention to what is being said in the final few scenes.

Although a second viewing didn't clarify where Chigurh was when Bell went into that hotel room.

comment #14

tpk123 says ...

The ending makes the movie. It is perfect.

comment #15

Craptastic says ...

p.Vice,

Its people like you who give people who truly love film...treat it as a true art-form... a bad name.

Just because someone's option of a film differs from yours does not make them a fucking moron.

Now off to watch "Mac & Me"...

comment #16

Jack Price says ...

"The real debate should be why - to what end the movie is designed this way. That would be a more fulfilling and interesting discussion than endless back and forth with people who seem to think movie=plot."

Excellent point you bring up.

Plot and Story are often inextricable. Look up "story" in the dictionary and one of the primary definitions that pops up is "a plot or story-line." Even now I have to talk myself into circles before I can come up with a satisfactory definition for either term.

In most cases, the order of events and the questions that are raised during and inbetween each event determine what the plot is all about. When the natural flow of questioning is completely disrupted, as I feel it is in No Country, it also forces you to reconsider the conventions of the story itself, perhaps less as an involved spectator and more from a detached point of view.

With story, the questions arise out of the experience as a whole. While the first go-around made a huge impression on me, I can't deny that I felt significantly moved by the ending after a second viewing. It was only then that the story truly came into focus for me, and I could finally see the film as a whole for the first time.

comment #17

joe dante says ...

I suggest reading the book, which includes several telling moments involving Ed Tom's past which, I think, would have clarified the ending for those who dislike it as is. Why the Coens went for such an oblique approach is anybody's guess.

comment #18

Jay T. says ...

Just because someone didn't like the end doesn't make them an idiot or wrong. I loved the book, understood exactly what was going on and what the story was trying to say, but was still disappointed by the ending. Like I've said in other threads, it was a huge visual letdown.

comment #19

Jay T. says ...

"I suggest reading the book, which includes several telling moments involving Ed Tom's past which, I think, would have clarified the ending for those who dislike it as is."

I think this is a great point, but actually suggests what's wrong with the end of the film. Without these other stories to setup the trend (other than at the very beginning) it felt to contrived and tacked on. To me, at least. The rest of the film was brilliant, however.

comment #20

rocco says ...

Sorry, but this explanation is off base. And again, the condescension towards those who disagree REALLY is not very becoming of its author or constructive if the goal is persuasion.

"...ask so little of themselves when they watch a movie." You lost ANYONE right there who doesn't like it.

I GET the ending. I even LOVE the ending. At the same time, I understand why it is dissatisfying to many, even intellectuals who GET it but DON'T love it. To suggest that a less enthusiastic reaction is intolerable is extremely arrogant. Goose-stepping around proclaiming superiority is really obnoxious.

And now we have people calling this the greatest ending of all time. I called this about a week ago, that people would resort to extreme positions--love or hate--because there is no tolerance by most of the lovers for any hesitation or difference of opinion. All these discussions do is propel people apart like carnival goers on opposite ends of a gravitron, and they actually DETRACT from the work.

And I still contend that TLJ's monologue is NOT the ending. The movie ends with Chigurh scampering away after having followed through on his promise to Moss that he would hunt down his wife. That's the "WOW!" ending...The recounting of the dream that follows is simply an epilogue that is meant, as epilogues are, to help put everything in perspective and drive home the theme.

comment #21

DarthCorleone says ...

"and the beauty of not showing Moss's fate on-screen is a direct comment about audiences that crave violence for their entertainment."

I don't agree with that at all. It sounds like a viewer's interpretation to be included in an essay as opposed to a "direct comment." I'd be interested to hear the Coens and McCarthy reaction to that.

In my opinion the beauty of not showing Moss' fate onscreen is that it reiterates the inevitability of his death.

Imagine if you had seen Moss' death in the context of an extended action sequence - a blazing gunfight. Wouldn't that have made it seem that Moss exhibited some control over his fate, even if he ultimately failed? Even in the case in which he wasn't able to put up much of a fight, it's still not as powerful of an illustration of the fact that he would not be escaping.

comment #22

Dan Revill says ...

When I saw the film a couple weeks ago I was sorta confused as to how people could have a problem with the ending. It was awesome. Glad someone put it into concise words as to why it works so well.
About halfway through the film I was going to lean over to my friend and tell him that this was too amazing to be true. It's a rare film of beauty and simplicity. Tommy Lee Jones' character's thoughts at the end are totally in keeping with what is being shown on the screen. I can't wait to watch it again. It's definitely a return to rare form for the Coens. Could another Lebowski-like treasure be far behind? ;-)

comment #23

Mr.ROACH says ...

Great article in the L.A. Times today, where Roger Deakins compares "No Country" to Peckinpah & Mailer: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-peckinpah23nov23,1,1589234.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar&ctrack=3&cset=true

comment #24

BurmaShave says ...

ROTC is one of the multitude of pour souls revealed by this movie to not even know that a climax and an ending are not the same thing.

comment #25

Joel says ...

Two things:

Chigurh was behind the door, wasn't he? Against the wall? So that when TLJ opened it he was still plastered against the wall, out of view?

And... not important, but who was floating in the swimming pool at the end? Was it one of the Mexicans? The blonde woman who had been sunbathing?

Was Chigurh even supposed to have been at the hotel when Moss died, or did the other hitmen kill him, and Chigurh arrived later to get the money from the expected hiding place?

Again, doesn't really matter, but...

comment #26

The Big Snake says ...

Nora Ephron does a great riff on all this in The New Yorker this week:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2007/11/26/071126sh_shouts_ephron

comment #27

ROTC says ...

BurmaShave, I didn't say the movie's ending was a climax. I said it was an anticlimax. "Since you are clearly one of the multitude of pour [sic] souls revealed by this movie to not even know that a climax and" an anticlimax are not the same thing, here is a dictionary definition of the latter:

anticlimax |ˌantēˈklīˌmaks; ˌantī-|
noun
a disappointing end to an exciting or impressive series of events : the rest of the journey was an anticlimax by comparison | a sense of anticlimax and incipient boredom.

Which is a dead-on perfect description of the conclusion of NCFOM.

comment #28

WKeane says ...

"Chigurh was behind the door, wasn't he? Against the wall? So that when TLJ opened it he was still plastered against the wall, out of view?"

Anton was not in the motel room when TLJ arrived. That was used to symbolize his thoughts, which is why the room was empty when TLJ finally opens the door.

Anton didn't kill Moss. The Mexicans are seen speeding away.

On another topic, I don't see why so many people are upset with the ending of the film. It builds to a climax, which is the murder of Carla Jean. The last scene with TLJ is to be expected given the opening voiceover. Has no one seen a film before? Most screenplays operate according to a circular logic. Therefore, the opening voiceover clearly indicates that the film will end with a few words from TLJ. The debate over the ending is silly, because it's not really all that unconventional, and anyone paying attention to the narrative structure should know exactly where it's heading.

comment #29

Eric Williams says ...

When I saw the film on its opening day at the Arclight, I honestly thought the projectionist had left out a reel. The transition from Moss talking to the woman at the pool to the Mexicans racing away simply felt too abrupt. I didn't need to see how Moss died -- the Coens are usually masterful in allowing brutality to occur offscreen -- but for so much clarifying information to be deliberately left out and for the departure of arguably the film's lead character to be so underplayed seemed like a stylistic break from the rest of the film and an extreme storytelling choice, even for the Coens. To argue that this jarring shift is true to the book is a cop-out. A film has to work on its own terms. I say this as someone who "got" and immediately defended the ending of "The Sopranos", which presented a similar narrative challenge to the viewer.

All this said, I was in awe of the remaining 95% of "No Country", I loved Tommy Lee Jones' final monologue and am dying to see the film again. Despite my quibbles, it was still the most satisfying experience I've had in a theatre this year.

comment #30

rocco says ...

"and the beauty of not showing Moss's fate on-screen is a direct comment about audiences that crave violence for their entertainment."

The second time around this sounds extremely idiotic. We've just spent 1:45 watching blood, brains, and guts splatter all over the screen...then, suddenly, like a master pulling back a bone dangling in front of his dog, the Coens pull back on the violence...and then chastise us for expecting to see more?

Please. Calling something genius and then belittling those who don't agree is an extremely underhanded and WEAK argument. It's a classic fallacy. Carrot-top: comic genius. You don't agree? You mst not have sense of humor.

See how easy it is?

Again, I like everything about the ending, but I'm really beginning to dislike this cult-like persuasion that's going on..."I get it...I love it...I'm so smart...why aren't you?...greatest ending ever!!" Get over yourself. Getting and liking the ending doesn't make you special... recognizing the brilliance of the Coens doesn't make you one of them.

And if I read one more time anything to the effect of "we WANT the violence but I LOVE that they deny us" I will personally pay for a 12-month subscription to any masochism website of choice for whoever says it. Acceptance is the first step towards recovery.

comment #31

DarthCorleone says ...

delbomber>> That is a facet of the film on which we agree completely. As I state above, I think the intent of having that death occur offscreen is completely different.

comment #32

hailfreedonia says ...

i loved the ending. it asks you to be contemplative about ideas of fate, fortune and choices. It is not pretentious and coy, but simple and the opposite of pandering -- which is what most movies do these days. My former professor David Mamet was a big proponent of the "surprising but inevitable" denouement and I would categorize this movie as pulling that off successfully. Just my opinion.

comment #33

Silverscreenvideos says ...

The more I think about the ending, the more it grows on me.

The essence of tragedy is a fatal flaw, and Tommy Lee Jones' passivity and indecision wound up costing, a couple of characters directly, and himself indirectly.

Life is full of disappointments. Good people die; the good guys don't always win. There is no reason a film, even one styled as a traditional thriller, has to pat us on the head at the end and reassure us that everything will be all right.

Frankly, I really enjoyed the degree of comeuppance that the Coens did give Javier Bardem at the end. Not the car accident or his broken arm, since he had walked off injuries before. No, he was a beaten man because Kelly McDonald had successfully shaken his carefully constructed psychotic value structure. Beaten to the point of paying off a couple of little boys to keep quiet about him. That for me was as enjoyable as seeing him blasted to bits by Brolin or Jones in a lesser movie might have been.

comment #34

rocco says ...

Silverscreen..YOU have just written something much more persuasive than any of the condescending crap Wells has seconded. Your comment is articulate and passionate without any disdain for conflicting opinions. Bravo.

It's a shame that most people who struggle with or dislike the ending will never read your comment...Wells will never post this on the front page because it's not inflammatory in any way.

comment #35

Silverscreenvideos says ...

The scene in which Tommy Lee Jones arrives at the motel when the Mexicans are fleeing really registered with me.

My mother dies in a nursing home a few years ago. I went to visit and walked in on her literally minutes after she must have died, since none of the staff was aware of it yet. I had them work on her but I knew it was too late.

Since then I've kicked myself that I let myself stand in line at the post office for a few minutes before going to see her and that by so doing I missed out on one last chance to talk to her. But that's how life is. You don't get that sense of cloture with loved ones all the time.

I have seen far too many movies with copouts of loved ones having that one last scene with the dying relative in the hospital, whose main purpose is to serve as an emotional crutch for the audience. The audience has its cathartic cry and feels better about it, but it's not how things happen all the time. This movie was messy and untidy and things didn't happen as they "should" have at the end, but things happened as they do in real life.

comment #36

Jay T. says ...

Look, this is stupid. The end works for some, doesn't for others. To say one group has it "right" is moronic, plain and simple.

comment #37

rocco says ...

Right, Jay T, that's what I've been saying all along. I found SS's take refreshinglishy void of such confrontation.

Silverscreen...I'm right there with you about "last words" or final moments. I had a beautiful discussion with my mother the last time I saw her a few days before she died from cancer...but had I known at the time it was going to be our very last conversation I would have said SO MUCH MORE. I'm sure it happens on rare occasions, but I always find those scenes to which you refer false and insincere.

We've been so conditioned by movies to believe in miracles that when we see Moss' body on the floor, we expect him to get up or be revived somehow. Whether the Coen's intentionally nailed the essence of LIFE or we're projecting such genius upon them is irrelevant...a lot of the feelings and themes taken away are inherent truths.

We all have such a false sense of control that we delude ourselves into believing we're invincible. Moss' character seemed to have such a steady hand that his death was startling and difficult to accept. What makes his death so resonating is that NO ONE wakes up the the day they die thinking this is their last day on earth. Death is always sudden, whether it be at the hands of mexican bandits or after a protracted battle with cancer. All this arguing about the last scene really detracts from the beautiful allegory that precedes it.

comment #38

EOTW says ...

Reading to all of this makes me realize that i have NEVER had a beautiful conversation with my mother. Just not capable of it. Not a sad thing, just some folks are built that way while others are. I like the idea that Anton was nicer to those kids because of what he had to do to someone like Carla Jean, but he turns back into the ghost. You can't change who you are. Plain and simple, despite the little, smallest moment of grace.

comment #39

huisache says ...

the title comes from the first line of a poem by W.B.Yeats called Sailing to Byzantium. Reading the poem may enrich your enjoyment of the film

comment #40

nick henderson says ...

THE ENDING IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK. NEITHER IS THE MOVIE.

When Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) returns to the Motel Crime Scene the entire film comes together.

Consider the extent to which the Cohen Bros. emphasized the lack of conclusive visuals. For example, the confrontation between Carla Jean and Chigurh can be deduced out of obscurity, but nevertheless we’re deprived any concrete knowledge. After all, he may have looked at his boots after leaving (indicating he killed her), but on the other hand, he wasn’t carrying any weapons. In fact, he wasn’t carrying any inside the house either.

BACK TO THE MOTEL - Without question, the film’s most crucial confrontation occurs between Chigurh and Bell inside that room. Do you remember this? Probably not, since we're not invited to watch it. The confrontation occurs sometime after Bell realizes the vent had been dismantled, but before he drives to visit his uncle Ellis. (Chigurh shares an on-screen conversation with every major characters except Bell)

My hypothesis:

1. Bell sells his soul to Chigurh.
2. Chigurh was never interested in money.
3. Bell keeps the money (and retires in the following scene)
4. Chigurh never cared about the money.

Prior to making my case -

consider Bill’s opening monologue -

Bell:
You can say it's my job to fight it but
I don't know what it is anymore.
More than that, I don't want to know. A
man would have to put his soul at hazard.
He would have to say, okay, I'll be
part of this world.

Also - Remember in the scene following the Motel when Bell visits his uncle Ellis? During their conversation he admits that he’s retiring. He admits to feeling abandoned by God. And he admits to knowing that God doesn’t think highly of him -

Bell:
...I always thought when I got older
God would sort of come into my life
in some way. He didn't. I don't blame
him. If I was him I'd have the same
opinion about me that he does.

Ellis
You don't know what he thinks.

Bell
Yes I do.

- His response to Ellis is revealing in the context of this unseen confrontation with Chigurh. Bell isn’t admitting his atheism. He isn’t claiming God doesn’t exist. He is simply saying that God doesn’t like him. How does he know what God thinks? And why doesn’t he doubt God’s existence instead of doubting hiw own morality?

He IS NOT distraught because he couldn’t catch Anton. Essentially, he still could. Essentially, he is very close to catchin Anton. Why doesn’t he dispatch cars to find him? Why doesn’t he search the premises?

As far as Bell’s retirement; He was old, and he was cynical of the times. However, he did not intend to retire. Something happened between the time we left him at the motel room and when we picked up with him at Uncle Ellis’. It’s also worth mentioning how Moss refered to himself as retired when Wells inquiried. Moss playfully called Carla Jean retired during their bus trip. And when Bell gets the money, Bell does the same. Or so I’m suggesting. His wife Loretta isn’t retired, and she reminds him of this over breakfast that morning.

See - Bell hasn’t told her yet. He will never tell her. He will never tell anyone. And this is the suffering that really materializes in that last shot. Bell is not a man devastated by his own physical or intellectual limitation, but by that of his morality.

Remember when Chigurh wastes the Steven Root character? The accountant asks Chigurh if he plans to kill him as well. Chigurh replies with; “That depends. Do you see me?” On one level, this dialogue plays on the practice of “killing the witnesses”. On a subtexual level, there is a deep religious and ghostly implication tucked into the question.

Again, Back to the Motel Room.

There have been a number of disagreements about the facts of the scene. Here is what you must understand. Before you dispute them, do your research. Watch the film again. Read the screenplay. Browse message boards.

Chigurh was in the room. It was not imagination on the part of Bell. Chigurh was not renting the room next door. End of story. The Editing was clear. In fact, it was traditional. The original screenplays supports this position.

Chigurh did not escape out the window. I picked up on this immediately. Do folks not recall an awkwardly long take of the small bathroom window? You may remember that the window was locked from the inside (supported in the screenplay) and obviously closed. And, not to mention, the window was too small for Chigurh to climb out of with his weaponry, satchel, and busted leg.

Chigurh DID NOT have the money at the end of the movie. In fact, no one even sees the satchel again after the poolside prostitute conversation. Chigurh wasn’t interested in the loot. He refused to even entertain Wells’ claim of its whereabouts. In a fantastic line of dialogue, Chigurh explains how he doesn’t know where the money is but he knows where it will be; “It will be brought to me and placed at my feet”.

In a nutshell -

Bell busts in just as Chigurh has dismantled the vent. Chigurh hides. Bell sits on the bed. Sees the vent has been dismantled (the dime is heads up which forshadows the quarter toss that decides what we don’t actually see). Chigurh confronts him. Coin gets flipped. Chigurh buys his freedom and moves on to another soul. He is evil personified.

best,
Henderson.nj@gmail.com

comment #41

Craig Kennedy says ...

Glad to see the discussion of No Country for Old Men continues. I take this as further evidence of its brilliance and impact.

No movie has stuck with me this year the way No Country has. Not Zodiac. Not Jesse James. Not There Will Be Blood.

I appreciate the fact that many people were disappointed by the ending, but I'd love to hear some suggestions of how it could've been better.

comment #42

bob giovaneli says ...

Ericwilliams and delbomber, I couldn't agree with you more.

A film with brilliantly calibrated moments of violence and suspense to not only deflate at its end, but just stop dead after a monologue by Bell, is going to disappoint, and maybe anger, many people with "higher" brains than you might think.

(And I agree about the Sopranos ending. Though it's a shocking CUT TO BLACK when we're dying to know what Meadow is going to run into the diner to see, or not see...it let you paint the picture yourself as to what might happen as soon as it does cut to black. It didn't happen offscreen. It happened "right in front of us". We just didn't see it. Maddening, yes. But the tone worked with the series that it closed the book on.)

Back to NO COUNTRY.

For someone to say that those of us disappointed that we don't see what happens to Moss are craving violence, or can't think for ourselves, they are WAY off track.

As I said in a different thread, it's clear what Karla Jean's outcome is when Chigurh leaves the house. Not just because he checks his boots, but because WE SAW THEIR CONVERSATION...and we can deduce the rest. If anything, I'm glad we're spared Karla Jean's death. (Love that Kelly McDonald...)

Not letting us see squat as to what happens to Moss when he is killed, after seeing "day-player" supporting characters die in front of us, smacks of preciousness to me.

Does it show the cruelty of the world? That any of us can die at any moment? More like cruelty to viewers. It showed a wee bit of storytelling arrogance, to use a word someone else used on this thread.

The tone of this film is major league suspense and brief bits of violence. Pulling that from us when it comes to the main protagonist...is simply confounding to me.

Is it ultimately a brilliant move by the Coens to have us all this hot and bothered by it? Perhaps. But it doesn't make it right.

About Chigurh just walking away at the end...believe it or not, I'm fine with that too.
Because you might forget, that when he enters the film, he's being arrested for something. We have no idea why, though it was no doubt for a murder with the air pressure device as it gets put in the trunk of the cop car. But he comes into the story "already in progress", so when he limps away from us after the crash, he leaves as mysteriously as he's introduced in the film.

That's actually a cool bookend. A little maddening, yes. But I'm not CRAVING for someone to blast Chigurh away.

Do I love that a random car from nowhere, a deus ex machina in a way, nearly kills him? Storytelling-wise, no. A first time writer would get lambasted for that out-of-nowhere situation.

Yes, it's real life that a car can come from nowhere and kill or maim someone. One could say it's God's coin toss. Heads or tails?

I just wanted a clearer idea of what happens to Moss, and how it happened. And maybe a horizon shot of a limping Chigurh as Bell has his monologue become a VO. (Now there would have been your stylistic bookend!) I'm not asking for much.

And again....to all those who say "you should read the book", maybe I should as I hear it's, um...good. But it shouldn't factor in this discussion. Reading a book should have no basis on appreciating the movie that springs from it.

The movie has to stand on its own two feet and do its job. No Cliff Notes allowed when you give in to cinema.

comment #43

WKeane says ...

Bob, Moss was killed by the mexicans. What more do you need?

They showed up at the motel, because his mother in law told one of them where he was staying. A group of Mexicans is seen driving away from the motel, as Bell arrives. The Coens explained everything you need to know.

comment #44

hypeful says ...

Nicely put, Craig - the ending certainly hit me like a gut punch (in a very good way). Sheriff Bell's final lyrical dialogue felt all the more profound in such a silently meditating film.

comment #45

hatchetface says ...

To have any images playing over TLJ's description of the dream, as suggested above, would completely undercut and betray the point of the entire sequence; I don't feel it could ever work.


I loved the book and its ending, and I loved the film too, but like Joe said above, there's several moments with Bell in the book that really build to that ending with his wife - Bell's character has fully 'earned' that ending by the time you get there, and there is no mistaking how frightened he is to lose everything he loves in order to play to crime-film tropes and have a big show-down with Anton for the audience. It just works differently on the screen, and I feel it's less profound in the film. The scene at the hotel is also key, and plays quite differently in how it shows Bell to be willing to stand at a line in the proverbial sand and not cross it because he fears what could be lost.

I am still thinking about this film, and though an adaptation of any book I love will appear flawed when held up to the original, it's a new favorite by the Coens, two of my favorite film-makers. Tremendous, really, and I would hope everyone who hasn't already goes out and reads the novel.